For the moment, San Diego Mayor Bob Filner is still welcome in his 11th-floor City Hall office, despite a burgeoning recall movement against him after more than a dozen women came forward to allege sexual harassment, either through unwanted advances or inappropriate statements.

However, the 70-year-old former Congressman is very much unwelcome in Hooters.

Four San Diego-area branches of the national chain best known for having waitresses wear tank tops and tight orange shorts have posted signs saying that they would not serve Filner.

“This establishment recognizes that we all have political differences and we serve people from all walks of life,” the signs read. “We also believe it is imperative for people to have standards. The mayor of San Diego will not be served in this establishment. We believe women should be treated with respect.”

Fox5SanDiego.com reported that the signs were available for download from the website of national TV and radio personality Glenn Beck, formerly of Fox News.

Melissa Fry, the marketing director for Hootwinc, which operates Hooters franchises on the West Coast, said the embattled mayor is also banned from Hooters locations in the nearby towns of Mission Valley, Oceanside and Rancho Bernardo.

Filner has not been seen publicly since entering a two-week therapy session. His representatives have said that the mayor would not be available for public comment this week while he receives outpatient care.

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people or possibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people..."

You mean like this statement?

"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman … What I believe, in my faith, is that a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God, and it’s not simply the two persons who are meeting,”

You progressives would never nominate and elect such a bigot as President, would you?

First the righties are soiling themselves in outrage that the NYT or Obama or whoever failed to make enough noise about a sexual predator D in a California political office.

Now they're outraged that Hooters won't endanger their own waitresses by serving a sexual predator.....because a different restaurant owner hates gay people but is still willing to serve them food.

Slow news year?

"hates gay people"

Do you just outright LIE for effect or are you simply stupid? Cathy hires ALL. Transgender, Gay, all creeds, all colors, all marriage-types (yes SSM included)...........do you NOT read or learn or is it a simple preference to be completely misinformed?

He has many gay people working in his stores and again they rave about his fairness, loyalty, and honor.

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people or possibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people orpossibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

Whether something is ILLEGAL and whether there will ever be prosecuted are mutually exclusive. See Eric Holder for examples.

What value is a law when there will be selective and political enforcement?

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people orpossibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

Whether something is ILLEGAL and whether there will ever be prosecuted are mutually exclusive. See Eric Holder for examples.

What value is a law when there will be selective and political enforcement?

Some might argue that this perv is in a class of his own.

Well, he's a Democrat, and a liberal, so he gets to skate, because he is pro abortion.

It seemed you thought Chik-Filet hiring gay people, SSM people, all religions, all colors, all creeds, WAS discriminatory, and you also mentioned that they discriminated against these people for service.

How can you expect anyone to engage with you if you are going to lie about what they said while simultaneously flinging some of the most pathetically childish insults at them?

F yourself, kiddo.

You didn't say the things claimed.

what I saw you say is something to the effect that believing in the biblical model of the family was discriminatory, and something to the effect that god is an invisible man in the sky.

that makes you an anti-Christian bigot, and Chick fil a is still celebrating diversity.

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people orpossibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

Banning an individual from a restaurant is not illegal and happens all the time in the restaurant ( and entertainment ) industry. This guy has demonstrated a lack of self control around women..so Hooters is certainly within their right to ban him from the facility.

Although...I will say..the irony is not lost on me that a restaurant chain that profits off of objectifying women...is banning a guy who objectifies women...lol

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people orpossibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

Banning an individual from a restaurant is not illegal and happens all the time in the restaurant ( and entertainment ) industry. This guy has demonstrated a lack of self control around women..so Hooters is certainly within their right to ban him from the facility.

Although...I will say..the irony is not lost on me that a restaurant chain that profits off of objectifying women...is banning a guy who objectifies women...lol

There is literally zero basis for comparison here. Hooters is refusing to serve a person who is demeaning to women and clearly lacks impulse control based on his actions. Restaurants are free to refuse to serve patrons on the basis of protecting employees. The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people.

The good news is that if you feel Hooters acted unfairly towards this individual, you are free to boycott them..or organize a boycott. My guess is that would be much more productive than attempting to draw false comparisons in a political discussion board.

"It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

"The owner of Chic filet came out and made discriminatory remarks against an entire class of people."

He did? Maybe you need to see his exact words:

"Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …

“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”

Homosexuals, transgenders are classes of people orpossibly people who made a decusuin?

Seems both situations refuse to serve folks based on some interpretation of morality

Chick Fil A never refused to serve that "class of people", or any class of people. that's just crazy talk.

Hooters is barring a single individual from being served. That's probably illegal.

Banning an individual from a restaurant is not illegal and happens all the time in the restaurant ( and entertainment ) industry. This guy has demonstrated a lack of self control around women..so Hooters is certainly within their right to ban him from the facility.

Although...I will say..the irony is not lost on me that a restaurant chain that profits off of objectifying women...is banning a guy who objectifies women...lol